本文選題：南海問(wèn)題　切入點(diǎn)：中美關(guān)系　出處：《鄭州大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：南海問(wèn)題由來(lái)已久,是中國(guó)與有關(guān)國(guó)家圍繞南沙群島主權(quán)與毗鄰海域管轄權(quán)產(chǎn)生爭(zhēng)議的問(wèn)題。它既是歷史遺留問(wèn)題與領(lǐng)土主權(quán)問(wèn)題,也是國(guó)際法問(wèn)題和經(jīng)濟(jì)資源問(wèn)題,因其牽扯國(guó)家多,涉及范圍廣,很難在短時(shí)間內(nèi)得到徹底解決。但冷戰(zhàn)結(jié)束至2009年前后,南海爭(zhēng)端各方能夠在一系列溝通與對(duì)話機(jī)制的協(xié)調(diào)下管控分歧,和睦相處。2009年的國(guó)際海疆劃界事件是南海問(wèn)題風(fēng)云突變的導(dǎo)火索,在此風(fēng)波結(jié)束后,美國(guó)在“亞太再平衡”的大旗下將戰(zhàn)略視線東移,順勢(shì)介入了南海爭(zhēng)端,美國(guó)的干預(yù)行為是通過(guò)明確的政策指導(dǎo)有序推進(jìn)的,從“航行自由、遵守國(guó)際法”的道德說(shuō)教,到“事關(guān)國(guó)家利益、確保規(guī)則秩序”的所謂訴求,再到“巡航南海、拉攏東盟”的實(shí)際行動(dòng)。美國(guó)的攪局使南海問(wèn)題逐漸由“隱性”變?yōu)椤帮@性”,也使得有關(guān)爭(zhēng)端國(guó)矛盾激化,小范圍摩擦不斷,地區(qū)局勢(shì)風(fēng)云開(kāi)闔,極不穩(wěn)定。奧巴馬第一個(gè)任期內(nèi),美國(guó)實(shí)施了刺激國(guó)內(nèi)經(jīng)濟(jì)復(fù)蘇的一攬子計(jì)劃,也成功實(shí)現(xiàn)了從中東和西亞地區(qū)撤軍。在其第二個(gè)任期內(nèi),美國(guó)主要外交戰(zhàn)場(chǎng)轉(zhuǎn)移到了亞太,中美之間在南海地區(qū)進(jìn)行著激烈的博弈。美國(guó)制定的南海政策,從初衷、內(nèi)容、目的與手段上來(lái)看都有明顯的“針對(duì)中國(guó)”傾向。2009年國(guó)際金融危機(jī)以來(lái),世界權(quán)力格局發(fā)生了顯著變化:美國(guó)的持續(xù)衰落與中國(guó)的持續(xù)崛起,尤其在南海地區(qū),美國(guó)面臨著影響力下滑、地緣安全形勢(shì)嚴(yán)峻、盟友關(guān)系疏遠(yuǎn)、中國(guó)“戰(zhàn)略擴(kuò)張”、經(jīng)濟(jì)利益增大等一系列所謂的困境,這些要素構(gòu)成了美國(guó)制定南海政策的出發(fā)點(diǎn)。美國(guó)是世界上最善于制定外交政策的國(guó)家。奧巴馬時(shí)期的南海政策傳遞出美國(guó)政府對(duì)南海問(wèn)題的基本立場(chǎng)、態(tài)度與價(jià)值取向,涵蓋了美國(guó)處理南海事務(wù)的一般原則和精神,統(tǒng)籌美國(guó)在南海地區(qū)的外交行動(dòng)與軍事部署,為美國(guó)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人發(fā)表涉南海言論提供了一個(gè)基本的邏輯思路。通過(guò)研究美國(guó)南海政策,可以清楚的解析奧巴馬時(shí)期美國(guó)在南海地區(qū)“都做了些什么,是怎樣做的以及為什么要這樣做? ”從政策層面對(duì)美國(guó)外交與軍事行動(dòng)有個(gè)整體的把握和認(rèn)知,為中國(guó)的應(yīng)對(duì)和反擊提供一個(gè)較為穩(wěn)妥的理論建議。本文以?shī)W巴馬執(zhí)政時(shí)期為限,這一時(shí)期美國(guó)不僅制定了一套系統(tǒng)的南海政策,也付諸于實(shí)施并取得了預(yù)期的效應(yīng),也可能會(huì)被特朗普政府所繼承和延續(xù)。本文主體分為四大部分,第一部分介紹美國(guó)南海政策的出發(fā)點(diǎn),第二部分闡述奧巴馬政府南海政策的形成過(guò)程、主要內(nèi)容與基本特點(diǎn),第三部分介紹該政策的實(shí)施效應(yīng),第四部分對(duì)美國(guó)南海政策的未來(lái)進(jìn)行了展望并提出了一些應(yīng)對(duì)策略。從古典現(xiàn)實(shí)主義的視角來(lái)看,中美之間圍繞權(quán)力和利益的斗爭(zhēng)注定了兩國(guó)在南海問(wèn)題上的較量也會(huì)日趨常態(tài),這就要求我們做好長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)的規(guī)劃與打算。
[Abstract]:The question of the South China Sea has a long history, and it is a dispute between China and the countries concerned over the sovereignty of the Nansha Islands and the jurisdiction over the adjacent sea areas. It is not only a question of historical legacy and territorial sovereignty, but also a question of international law and economic resources. Because it involves a large number of countries and involves a wide range of countries, it is difficult to completely resolve in a short time. But between the end of the Cold War and around 2009, the parties to the South China Sea dispute can manage their differences under the coordination of a series of communication and dialogue mechanisms. The international maritime boundary demarcation incident in 2009 was the trigger for a sudden change in the South China Sea issue. After the storm ended, the United States moved its strategic line of sight eastward under the banner of "Asia-Pacific rebalancing," and stepped in to the South China Sea dispute. The intervention of the United States was carried out in an orderly manner through clear policy guidance, ranging from the moral preaching of "freedom of navigation, compliance with international law," to the so-called "national interest, ensuring the order of the rules", to the "cruise of the South China Sea." The United States' stirring up the South China Sea issue has gradually changed the South China Sea issue from "recessive" to "explicit", which has also intensified the contradictions between the countries concerned in the dispute, kept friction on a small scale, and opened and closed the regional situation. Extremely unstable. During Obama's first term, the United States implemented a package to stimulate domestic economic recovery and successfully withdrew troops from the Middle East and West Asia. In his second term, the main diplomatic battleground of the United States shifted to the Asia-Pacific region. There is a fierce game between China and the United States in the South China Sea. The South China Sea policy formulated by the United States has an obvious tendency to "target China" in terms of its original intention, content, purpose and means. Since the international financial crisis in 2009, Significant changes have taken place in the world power landscape: the continued decline of the United States and the continued rise of China, especially in the South China Sea, where the United States is facing a decline in influence, a grim geopolitical security situation and estrangement of its allies. China has a series of so-called dilemmas such as "strategic expansion" and increased economic benefits. These elements constitute the starting point for the United States to formulate its policy on the South China Sea. The United States is the best country in the world in formulating foreign policy. The Obama administration's policy on the South China Sea conveyed the basic position, attitude and value orientation of the US government on the issue of the South China Sea. It covers the general principles and spirit of the United States in handling affairs in the South China Sea, co-ordinates US diplomatic actions and military arrangements in the South China Sea region, and provides a basic logical way of thinking for US leaders to make statements concerning the South China Sea. It is clear what the United States did in the South China Sea during Obama's time, how and why? "from the policy level, there is an overall grasp and cognition of the US diplomatic and military actions, which provides a relatively sound theoretical suggestion for China's response and counterattack." this article is limited to the Obama administration. During this period, the United States not only formulated a set of systematic policies in the South China Sea, but also put them into practice and achieved the expected effects, which may also be inherited and continued by the Trump administration. The main body of this paper is divided into four parts. The first part introduces the starting point of the South China Sea policy of the United States, the second part describes the formation process, the main content and the basic characteristics of the Obama administration policy in the South China Sea, the third part introduces the implementation effect of the policy. The fourth part looks forward to the future of the South China Sea policy of the United States and puts forward some countermeasures. The struggle between China and the United States over power and interests is bound to lead to an increasingly normal contest over the South China Sea, which requires us to plan and plan for the long term.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：鄭州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D871.2;D823

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 張宇權(quán);;干涉主義視角下的美國(guó)南海政策邏輯及中國(guó)的應(yīng)對(duì)策略[J];國(guó)際安全研究;2014年05期

2 鞠海龍;曾芮;;中美海洋與島嶼戰(zhàn)略:對(duì)撞抑或相容?[J];人民論壇·學(xué)術(shù)前沿;2014年13期

3 楊震;周云亨;王萍;;論后冷戰(zhàn)時(shí)代美國(guó)對(duì)中國(guó)海權(quán)發(fā)展的制約[J];東北亞論壇;2014年04期

4 周琪;;冷戰(zhàn)后美國(guó)南海政策的演變及其根源[J];世界經(jīng)濟(jì)與政治;2014年06期

5 馬建英;;美國(guó)對(duì)中國(guó)周邊海洋爭(zhēng)端的介入——研究文獻(xiàn)評(píng)述與思考[J];美國(guó)研究;2014年02期

6 鞠海龍;;菲律賓南海政策中的美國(guó)因素[J];國(guó)際問(wèn)題研究;2013年03期

7 金永明;;中國(guó)南海斷續(xù)線的性質(zhì)及線內(nèi)水域的法律地位[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);2012年06期

8 郭淵;;冷戰(zhàn)初期美國(guó)的南中國(guó)海政策及其影響[J];太平洋學(xué)報(bào);2012年07期

9 許琳;;奧巴馬政府亞太戰(zhàn)略解析[J];東北亞論壇;2012年04期

10 鞠海龍;;菲律賓南海政策:利益驅(qū)動(dòng)的政策選擇[J];當(dāng)代亞太;2012年03期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 曾勇;中美關(guān)系視角下的南海問(wèn)題研究[D];中共中央黨校;2013年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 徐薛飛;美國(guó)的南海政策研究[D];中國(guó)海洋大學(xué);2014年

2 于菡;冷戰(zhàn)后美國(guó)南海政策研究[D];黑龍江大學(xué);2013年

3 杜鵬;奧巴馬政府南海政策研究[D];中共中央黨校;2012年

，

本文編號(hào)：1684471